Judith A. Bridges v. HHS - Pneumococcal, allergic reaction consisting of a red and hot arm, shoulder pain, headaches, and ongoing allergic reactions to various foods (2018)
Case summary [AI summaries can sometimes make mistakes]
On May 23, 2018, Judith A. Bridges, proceeding pro se, filed a claim in the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.
She alleged that on September 5, 2017, she received the Pneumococcal 23 (Pneumovax 23) vaccine in her right arm and subsequently experienced an allergic reaction. Her alleged symptoms included a red and hot arm, shoulder pain, headaches, and ongoing allergic reactions to various foods.
Ms. Bridges also received an influenza vaccine on the same day in her left arm but did not attribute her injuries to it.
During an initial status conference on June 19, 2018, Special Master Thomas L. Gowen explained to Ms.
Bridges that claims under the Vaccine Program are only permissible for vaccines listed on the Vaccine Injury Table. He informed her that the Pneumovax 23 vaccine is not on the Table and therefore not covered by the program.
Ms. Bridges stated that she believed she was reporting the reaction for statistical purposes.
As the vaccine was not covered by the program, Special Master Gowen determined that the petition failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Respondent, represented by Alexis B.
Babcock of the United States Department of Justice, did not object to this dismissal. Judgment was entered accordingly on June 20, 2018, dismissing the petition.
Theory of causation
Petitioner Judith A. Bridges filed a claim alleging an allergic reaction including a red and hot arm, shoulder pain, headaches, and ongoing food allergies following vaccination with Pneumovax 23 on September 5, 2017. The claim was filed on May 23, 2018. The Special Master, Thomas L. Gowen, determined that the Pneumovax 23 vaccine is not listed on the Vaccine Injury Table, and therefore, the claim failed to state a valid claim under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The petition was dismissed on June 20, 2018, as the vaccine was not covered. Petitioner was represented by herself (pro se), and respondent was represented by Alexis B. Babcock. The public decision does not describe the specific mechanism of injury, expert testimony, or award details, as the case was dismissed on threshold grounds.
Source PDFs
USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-00726